There Are People In Congress Working On Sustainable Energy And Environmental Justice-- But We Need More Of Them

In its mission statement, Congress' Sustainable Energy & Environment Coalition lays out two overarching goals:

• Advance policies that promote clean energy innovation and domestic manufacturing, develop renewable energy resources, and create good green jobs across the economy and the country.
• Advance polices to address climate change, protect our nation’s clean air, water and natural environment, and promote environmental justice.

There are 67 members-- all Democrats-- who have joined the Caucus. This week, Blue America has been working with their SEEC PAC to help raise last minute campaign contributions for congressional candidates who have been endorsed by both groups, the men and women who will be helping to lead the group's future.

One member, Ted Lieu, was a California state Senator when I first got to know him. At a discussion, someone asked him whey he would want to move away from his life in balmy California to go to the DC snakepit. He immediately focused on what turns out to be the SEEC mission statement. It was all about leaving his two young children a livable world. Yesterday, now-Congressman and now-SEEC member Ted Lieu reminded us that "One of the main reasons I ran for Congress was to work on legislation to address climate change on the national level. But in order to make any meaningful progress, we need to elect more Members of Congress who want to expand sustainable energy and address our climate crisis. That is why I am so grateful that Blue America is partnering with SEEC PAC to help these great candidates."

SEEC was founded in 2009 by now-Governor Jay Inslee (D-WA) at the start of the 111th Congress and is now a key green voice in the Congress. Last Congress, the coalition introduced its Sustainable Infrastructure Proposal and has continued to call for an infrastructure bill that takes bold steps to address climate change. Through its advocacy efforts, SEEC has seen increased funding for clean energy programs at the Department of Energy and the inclusion of water sustainability policy in the Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). It also successfully opposed anti-environmental riders in the 2018 Farm Bill and focused early attention on the dangerous health consequences of Trump’s Clean Power Plan replacement. Another California SEEC member, Katie Porter told us today that "The climate crisis demands an all-hands-on-deck approach, and that includes strengthening our research in and use of green technology. We need allies in Congress who will fight for a more sustainable future and invest in the innovative clean energy we need to protect our planet."

Please consider helping elect new members of Congress who have prioritized the SEEC agenda in their campaigns and will be the kinds of allies Porter is talking about. Click on the thermometer on the right for the whole list-- and to contribute to the carefully and doubled-- vetted candidates, like Jon Hoadley, who is taking on Trump enabler and friend of polluters Fred Upton in southwest Michigan. Hoadley noted that "Michigan is the Great Lakes state, but we're still facing a drinking water crisis as a result of corporate pollution. We need to put an end to the large-scale contamination of our water and air we've seen from fossil fuel companies, and take bold action to preserve our climate for future generations."

Electing Kara Eastman to replace Trump puppet Donald Bacon in Omaha is a top priority for both SEEC PAC and Blue America. This morning she told us that "It's incredibly important to have the support of SEEC and Blue America because climate change is the number one national security threat to our country now, and it's the number one moral crisis facing America going forward. In Nebraska, we've fought against the Keystone XL Pipeline and successfully pushed our public power district to move to a carbon neutral plan. Let's turn up the heat on climate change together."

Mike Siegel's campaign has been almost an embodiment of the SEEC mission statement-- cleaning up the environment, ameliorating climate change and working with unions to guarantee good green jobs in the new economy. "I'm honored to have the support of SEEC and Blue America as we build a broad national coalition to combat climate change and build the renewable economy we need," he said this week. "As a Democrat running for Congress in the heart of Texas, I know how important it is that we take bold, courageous steps to address climate change and environmental degradation, even when those steps require difficult conversations with workers and businesses that depend on fossil fuel revenue. The Texas 10th Congressional District is already suffering from the impact of our fossil fuel economy. We have a coal plant in Fayette County that has been polluting the air and water for 40 years; we have widespread fracking operations that release chemicals into our groundwater and methane into our air; we have a Houston region that has suffered five 500-year flood events in five years; and we have Bastrop county, which was devastated by a massive wildfire nine years ago. These natural and unnatural disasters can all be traced to fossil fuel emissions. Even though Texas is built on a fossil fuel economy, we can't put our heads in the sand and pretend that change is not needed. I'm running for Congress to build an unparalleled coalition of unions, environmentalists, ranchers and farmers, progressives and activists of all types, to fight climate change, to create jobs in a renewable economy, and to address the legacy of pollution and environmental injustice. Thank you, SEEC and Blue America for your belief and support, and I look forward to joining with you in the days, months and years ahead, for the good of our planet, and for the good of our nation."

Audrey Denney is taking on Trumpist do-nothing Doug LaMalfa again in the northeast corner of California. She told us she's "honored to have the support of Congress' Sustainable Energy & Environment Coalition! Human induced climate change is already here and we are living through the consequences. We can’t grow cherries in Butte county because there aren’t enough chill hours. Fire season is almost year round and our fires are burning hotter than ever before. In some cases creating their own weather. Through our horrific fires of the last two years my district became the face of this crisis. As evidenced by politicians on both sides of the aisle using our devastation for photo ops. But this district can become the face of the solution. I’m talking about restoring our forests to health so they become carbon sinks not sources. We’re talking about ag policy that equips and trains farmers to use practices that sequester carbon-- that actually turn the dial back on climate change. I cannot wait to get to Congress and work with the members of the SEEC to push this policy agenda forward!


 


UPDATE: Nate McMurray (NY-27)

"Receiving the support from SEEC and Blue America is not just important for my campaign but also for the people of the NY-27. Climate change is the most pressing environmental challenge facing our planet and communities in the U.S. and around the globe are already experiencing its impacts. We feel the impact of increasingly extreme weather quite dramatically in Western New York, the NY-27, where we live alongside not one, but two of the Great Lakes-- Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. So Western New Yorkers see every day, in every season that effects of decades of bad environmental policies. And finally people see that we have an obligation to ourselves, our children, and the states and our neighbor to the north, to take immediate action to address climate change’s threats to our economy, health, and environment. In Congress the NY-27 and I as their representative, will have great partners in SEEC and Blue America in the fight for the region's environmental priorities, like supporting 100% transition to clean energy by 2050, access to clean air and water as well as regionally funded initiatives such as the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Plan 2014, more conservation-focused planning by the Great Lakes' International Joint Commission, and improved Farming and Conservation initiatives. I cannot thank SEEC and Blue America enough for their support and belief in my campaign. We are on the cusp of victory and making a Democratic supermajority in Congress a reality in 2020!"

Here's How You Can Help Build Our Green Coalition

Blue America is working with our allies in Congress' Sustainable Energy And Environment Coalition Caucus [SEEC PAC], including old friends we've helped get elected and reelected like Matt Cartwright, Ted Lieu, Pramila Jayapal, Bonnie Watson-Coleman, Alan Lowenthal, Judy Chu, Ilhan Omar, Jim Himes, Barbara Lee, Earl Blumenauer, Steve Cohen, Raul Grijalva, Jerry McNerney, Nanette Barragan and Katie Porter.

Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), chair of Congress' Natural Resources Committee, told us yesterday that "Within the halls of Congress, no group is working harder than the SEEC Caucus to advance clean energy, climate change solutions, and environmental justice while protecting our air, water, wildlife, and public lands from the Trump administration." He further pointed out that "This work is powered by a grassroots network of people pitching in what they can to support this critical work." Blue America and SEEC PAC have teamed up to raise some last minute campaign contributions for candidates both our groups have endorsed:

• Nate McMurray (NY)
• Beth Doglio (WA)
• Marie Newman (IL)
• Julie Oliver (TX)
• Mike Siegel (TX)
• Kathy Ellis (MO)
• Audrey Denney (CA)
• Cathy Kunkel (WV)
• Jon Hoadley (MI)
• Kara Eastman (NE)
• Georgette Gomez (CA)
• Dana Balter (NY)

Let's face it, our planet is at stake in November. If we are going to build a better future for this generation and the next, there is no time to waste.

That's why SEEC PAC and Blue America have endorsed an incredible slate of leaders who will act on this issue. We can't give even an inch. It's essential that we expand our green coalition in the House and continue to push Congress to take up clean energy, climate resiliency, and environmental protections.

These green leaders can become Members of Congress-- with your help. Will you maximize your donation by contributing to these dually-endorsed candidates today?

The Trump administration spent four years taking a wrecking ball to environmental regulations. They hired oil and gas lobbyists and climate deniers to lead the federal agencies tasked with protecting our air, water, and public lands. They ignored the science while wildfires destroyed communities and hurricanes slammed our coasts.

It is going to take work to repair the damage of Donald Trump. We have to rebuild protections for our environment and ensure climate mitigation is a part of those conversations. We have to reinforce the government processes that allow us to protect the American people from reckless pollution and disregard of science and fact.

Climate change and environmental protection have been among the most important items Beth Doglio has attended to as a member of the Washington state legislature. As a congressional candidate, she told us that she's "So proud to have the endorsement of SEEC. My Govenor-- Jay Inslee- founded SEEC when he served in Congress. As a State Representative, I worked with  Governor Inslee to pass landmark policies addressing environmental issues in Washington. We passed a suite of climate policies moving our state to 100% clean electricity, making our existing commercial buildings more efficient and building our mass transit and vehicle/ferry electrification systems. We are on track to meet our greenhouse emission reduction goals in statute. I can't wait to work with SEEC membership to pass bold transformational policies that make the visionary Green New Deal our future."

Progressive Democrat Kathy Ellis told us this morning that she's "running for Congress in a largely rural, 30-county district in Missouri that's been decimated by climate change and deregulation. Our local economy is almost entirely based on the environment, whether it’s through farming, hospitality, or our incredible state parks and riverways. And yet, over the last ten years, we’ve seen the damage that a climate-denier congressman can have: our farmers have struggled greatly because of intense flooding on their farms, our local economy has suffered as a result, and deregulation has caused great pollution of our beautiful waterways-- all while Jason Smith votes against every bill that would tackle these problems. Having the support of SEEC means a great deal to me, as a pro-environment and pro-science candidate. Missouri’s 8th District deserves-- and desperately needs-- a representative who is ready to fight each and every day for legislation that will protect our environment, create jobs, and tackle some of the root causes of climate change. I’m ready to be that person, and I’m honored to have SEEC in this fight with me."

Syracuse area progressive Dana Balter was endorsed early on by both Blue America and the SEEC Caucus. She's a big fan of the fact that the Caucus "s leading the fight in Congress on bold, smart, and strategic clean energy policies. They've also played a critical role in opposing and highlighting the dangers of anti-environmental actions taken by the Trump administration. Rebuilding our economy from the fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic gives us the opportunity to make a significant investment in clean energy jobs-- and the SEEC Caucus is working to make that a reality. Their leadership is invaluable, and I am deeply honored to have their support in this race."

It's going to take a strong green coalition in the House fighting every day to pass comprehensive climate legislation and hold Congress to account as climate change knocks at our door.

That's why SEEC PAC and Blue America endorsed green leaders running in close House races around the country. They're ready to act on climate on Day 1-- but first, they need your help to win their races!

Split a donation between SEEC PAC/Blue America endorsed candidates today to give these candidates a boost with less than 3 weeks before Election Day.

Mike Siegel just added something I want to share: ""I'm honored to have the support of SEEC and Blue America as we build a broad national coalition to combat climate change and build the renewable economy we need. As a Democrat running for Congress in the heart of Texas, I know how important it is that we take bold, courageous steps to address climate change and environmental degradation, even when those steps require difficult conversations with workers and businesses that depend on fossil fuel revenue. The Texas 10th Congressional District is already suffering from the impact of our fossil fuel economy. We have a coal plant in Fayette County that has been polluting the air and water for 40 years; we have widespread fracking operations that release chemicals into our groundwater and methane into our air; we have a Houston region that has suffered five 500-year flood events in five years; and we have Bastrop county, which was devastated by a massive wildfire nine years ago. These natural and unnatural disasters can all be traced to fossil fuel emissions. Even though Texas is built on a fossil fuel economy, we can't put our heads in the sand and pretend that change is not needed. I'm running for Congress to build an unparalleled coalition of unions, environmentalists, ranchers and farmers, progressives and activists of all types, to fight climate change, to create jobs in a renewable economy, and to address the legacy of pollution and environmental injustice. Thank you, SEEC and Blue America for your belief and support, and I look forward to joining with you in the days, months and years ahead, for the good of our planet, and for the good of our nation."

Good News: It's Now Safe To Flush Your Toilet In Brazoria County, Texas... Drinking Tap Water, Though, Is A Little Dicey

 

New coronavirus cases in Texas have been leveling off. By Saturday, Texas had given up its usual place as the first or second daily nightmare and was "just" the 5th, behind a similarly leveling off California, a steady-as-you-go Florida and behind the big surges in Wisconsin and Illinois. But Texas has another nightmare to contend with instead-- a brain-eating amoeba in the tap water. The warning above came from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Who even ever imagined Texas has one!

There was some good news in the announcement to the 8 cities in jeopardy. Although your brain could be eaten if you use the tap water, it's A-OK to flush the toilet.

I was interested in knowing how the brain-eating amoeba (naegleria fowleri) got into Brazoria County's water supply. In the initial press release the warning was for the following cities: Lake Jackson, Freeport, Angleton, Brazoria, Richwood, Oyster Creek, Clute, Rosenburg, Dow Chemical, TDCJ Clemens and TDCJ Wayne Scott. Well, TDCJ stands for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-- and I hope they're serving Fiji water to the inmates in the two facilities-- but Dow Chemical? Dow chemical, that's a city? Well, not exactly. I don't know for 100% if it was Dow that is responsible for the brain-eating water, but... come on-- until we hear it isn't, we know it is. On their corporate website, Dow brags that "Everything is bigger in Texas and that includes The Dow Chemical Company. Dow first came to Texas in 1940, building a plant in Freeport to extract magnesium from seawater. The company’s presence in the state has continued to grow through the years, and now it calls Deer Park, Freeport, Houston, La Porte, Seadrift and Texas City home... Dow facilities in Texas produce billions of pounds of products each year that enhance the quality of life for people around the globe. Dow products serve virtually every consumer market ranging from food to building and construction and from health and medicine to transportation. These products are used in a variety of end-use products-- office supplies, mouthwash, pharmaceuticals, computers, furniture, paints, carpet, garbage bags, cosmetics, chewing gum, lozenges, cleaning products and food." But don't despair... They saved the good news for last: "Dow is committed to the principles of Sustainable Development-- working to enhance economic prosperity, environmental stewardship and corporate responsibility."

Brazoria County is Trump country. In 2016, he beat Hillary there 72,653 (60.4%) to 43,075 (35.8%). Presumably, most of the voters oppose regulations that would protect them from brain-eating amoebas in their water. Otherwise they wouldn't have voted for Greg Abbott in 2018. He was reelected governor by Brazorians, 70,373 (63.1%) to 39,536 (35.4%). And they thought anti-environment, anti-regulation fanatic Ted Cruz would be a better senator than Beto-- 58.8% to 40.5%. Sociopath and anti-regulatory congressman Randy Weber represents Brazoria in Congress and the county performed at an R+40 level for him, far stronger than any other part of TX-14. He's running again this cycle-- again against Adrienne Bell-- and I'm sure anyone who has been impacted by Dow Chemical's presence in their drinking water will dutifully vote for him again-- and for John Cornyn.

This morning, I asked Bell if it's fair for me to blame Texas politicians like Weber for this environmental catastrophe in Brazoria. She did not shy away from the question, the way most candidates would. "There is real talk and political talk. The political talk gets complicated because it involves buzzwords like governmental regulation, the free market and the science of water quality. That’s the kind of talk Weber wants because it keeps voters and residents confused enough to keep voting for him. The real talk is this-- there is a brain-eating amoeba in the water in Brazoria County, and it is there because of Dow Chemical dumping their waste. Randy Weber took thousands from DOW Chemical’s official PAC back in June of 2019. Weber is content to let Texans drink poisoned water because of campaign donations. He doesn’t care about Texans as much as he cares about making a living at the expense of Texans’ health. So what if some people get sick and die, as long as he keeps his seat. You can retire this minion of Trump by voting him out in November, so you can rely on someone like me to give you the real talk."

Julie Oliver is running for Congress in a different part of Texas-- the center of the state-- but a few minutes ago she told me that "We see repeatedly that when left without oversight, companies fail to do the right thing by their communities and fail to comply with laws like the Clean Water Act, posing significant health risks and leaving working class communities the most severely impacted. Unfortunately under the Trump administration, the EPA has been neutered in its ability to enforce these laws through regulatory oversight. We need real leadership at the EPA-- not science--denying ideologues."

On Saturday, Brazoria County reported 59 new COVID cases, bringing the county total to 11,281. There were 2 more COVID deaths (for a total of 165 countywide). So far just one person has had his brain eaten by naegleria fowleri, a six-year old boy. The warning about drinking from the tap has been lifted in all the cities but Lake Jackson, where the region's water treatment plant is located. Somehow that doesn't sound reassuring.

The authority said in a statement that it was unclear how long it would be before the tap water was again safe.

The authority’s water source is the Brazos River.

Naegleria fowleri is a free-living microscopic amoeba, or single-celled living organism commonly found in warm freshwater and soil, according to the U.S Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

It usually infects people when contaminated water enters the body through the nose, from where it travels to the brain and can cause a rare and debilitating disease called primary amebic meningoencephalitis.

The infection is usually fatal and typically occurs when people go swimming or diving in warm freshwater places such as lakes and rivers. In very rare instances, naegleria infections may also occur when contaminated water from other sources (such as inadequately chlorinated swimming pool water or heated and contaminated tap water) enters the nose.

The contamination of U.S. treated public water systems by the microbe is rare but not unheard of.

According to the CDC website, the first deaths from naegleria fowleri found in tap water from treated U.S. public drinking water systems occurred in southern Louisiana in 2011 and 2013.

The microbe was also found in 2003 in an untreated geothermal well-supplied drinking water system in Arizona, as well as in disinfected public drinking water supplies in Australia in the 1970s and ’80s and in 2008 in Pakistan.

Will The Climate Crisis Be A Factor In November?

On Tuesday, Pew released a new poll on the climate crisis which shows that "a majority of Americans continue to say they see the effects of climate change in their own communities and believe that the federal government falls short in its efforts to reduce the impacts of climate change. At a time when partisanship colors most views of policy, broad majorities of the public-- including more than half of Republicans and overwhelming shares of Democrats-- say they would favor a range of initiatives to reduce the impacts of climate change, including large-scale tree planting efforts, tax credits for businesses that capture carbon emissions and tougher fuel efficiency standards for vehicles... Public concern over climate change has been growing in recent years, particularly among Democrats."

From the moment it seized control of the executive branch, the Trump Regime has been throwing out regulations on the fossil fuel industry, pushing for more drilling and coal mining and weakening vehicle fuel-efficiency standards. Meanwhile 65% of Americans say the federal government is doing too little to reduce the effects of climate change and majorities also feel the Regime isn't doing enough to protect air and water quality.

Consistent with public concerns over climate and the environment, 79% of Americans say the priority for the country’s energy supply should be developing alternative sources of energy, such as wind and solar; far fewer (20%) give priority to expanding the production of oil, coal and natural gas. To shift consumption patterns toward renewables, a majority of the public (58%) says government regulations will be necessary to encourage businesses and individuals to rely more on renewable energy; fewer (39%) think the private marketplace will ensure this change in habits.

Partisans remain far apart on several overarching questions about climate change. Much larger shares of Democrats and those who lean toward the Democratic Party than Republicans and Republican leaners say human activity is contributing a great deal to climate change (72% vs. 22%), that it is impacting their own local community (83% to 37%) and that the government is doing too little to reduce the effects of climate change (89% to 35%).

Despite these differences, there is bipartisan support for several policy options to reduce the effects of climate change. This is especially true when it comes to proposals put forth earlier this year by Republican members of Congress, such as large scale tree-plantings to help absorb carbon emissions and offering tax credits to businesses that capture carbon emissions.

...84% of U.S. adults support providing a business tax credit for carbon capture technology that can store carbon emissions before they enter the atmosphere. Large majorities of Democrats (90%) and Republicans (78%) back this proposal, which House Republicans rolled out earlier this year.

Most Americans also support tougher restrictions on power plant emissions (80%), taxing corporations based on the amount of carbon emissions they produce (73%) and tougher fuel-efficiency standards for automobiles and trucks (71%). Partisan divides are wider on these three policies, with Democrats much more supportive than Republicans. Still, about half or more of Republicans say they would favor each of these policies, including 64% who back tougher emission standards for power plants.

While partisanship remains the predominant dividing line in many views of climate and the environment, there are meaningful differences within party coalitions.

In particular, Republicans and Republican leaners who describe their political views as moderate or liberal (roughly a third of all Republicans and leaners) are much more likely than conservative Republicans to see local impacts of climate change, support policies to address it and say the federal government is doing too little in areas of environmental protection. Further, younger generations and women in the GOP tend to be more critical of government action on the environment than their older and male counterparts. Republican women also are more supportive of polices aimed at reducing the impacts of climate change than GOP men.

Differences among Democrats and Democratic leaners are more modest. Strong majorities of both moderate or conservative and liberal Democrats believe the federal government is doing too little to reduce climate change and support a range of policies to address its effects on the environment. There are not meaningful differences in these views among Democrats by either gender or generation.

...Majorities of U.S. adults favor each of the five proposals to reduce the effects of climate change included in the survey. The most popular, favored by 90% of Americans, is to plant about a trillion trees to absorb carbon emissions. President Trump announced in this year’s State of the Union that the U.S. would join the World Economic Forum’s One Trillion Trees Initiative.

Widespread public support extends to proposals to provide a tax credit to businesses for development of carbon capture and storage capacity (84%) and tougher restrictions on power plant carbon emissions (80%).

About seven-in-ten also favor taxing corporations based on their carbon emissions (73%) and adopting tougher fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks (71%).

The Trump administration has taken steps over the past year to roll back regulations on carbon emissions in areas such as fuel-efficiency standards for vehicles and power plants emissions.

Support for these policies aligns with how effective the public thinks they would be. A 2018 survey found majorities of Americans believed restrictions on power plant emissions, tax incentives to encourage businesses to reduce carbon emissions and tougher fuel-efficiency standards for cars would all make a difference at reducing climate change.

Most U.S. adults think human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels, contributes a great deal (49%) or some (32%) to climate change. About two-in-ten (19%) say human activity contributes not too much or not at all to climate change. Views on this question are about the same as they were last fall.

Americans continue to be deeply politically divided over how much human activity contributes to climate change. About seven-in-ten Democrats (72%) say human activity contributes a great deal to climate change, compared with roughly two-in-ten Republicans (22%), a difference of 50 percentage points.

The difference is even wider among those at the ends of the ideological spectrum. A large majority of liberal Democrats (85%) say human activity contributes a great deal to climate change. Only 14% of conservative Republicans say the same-- 45% of this group says human activity contributes not too much or not at all to climate change.

Views about the role of human activity in climate change also vary by education among Democrats, but not among Republicans. Democrats who have graduated from college are more likely to say human activity contributes a great deal to climate change than Democrats without a college degree. For example, 86% of Democrats with a postgraduate degree say human activity contributes a great deal to climate change, compared with a smaller majority (58%) of Democrats with no college experience. Among Republicans, comparably small shares across level of education see human activity as contributing a great deal to climate change.

Previous Pew Research Center analyses have found a similar dynamic in views of climate change by level of science knowledge, based on an 11-item index. Among Democrats, those with higher levels of science knowledge are more likely to say human activity influences climate change a great deal than those with lower levels of science knowledge. By contrast, there is no such relationship among Republicans.

There also are significant differences in these views among Democrats by race and ethnicity. Overall, 80% of white Democrats and 70% of Hispanic Democrats say human activity contributes a great deal to climate change. By contrast, black Democrats are much less likely to take this view: 49% believe human activity contributes a great deal to climate change.

Reducing reliance on carbon-based fuels is viewed by climate advocates as a critical step to preventing the worst impacts of climate change. The survey finds a broad majority of Americans (79%) say the more important priority for the country is to develop alternative sources, such as wind and solar; far fewer (20%) say the more important energy priority is to expand the production of oil, coal and natural gas...

An overwhelming majority of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (91%) say that developing alternative sources should be the nation’s energy priority. A smaller majority of Republicans and Republican leaners (65%) also takes this view.

Among moderate and liberal Republicans, a large share (81%) say developing alternative sources should be the nation’s energy priority. The views of moderate and liberal Republicans are relatively close to those of Democrats: 88% of moderate and conservative Democrats and a near-unanimous 97% of liberal Democrats say the more important energy priority is developing alternative sources. By contrast, conservative Republicans are much more divided in their views: A narrow majority (54%) gives greater priority to developing alternative energy sources, while 45% say the priority should be expanding the production of oil, coal and natural gas.

On balance, a majority of U.S. adults see a role for government in shifting usage patterns toward renewables.

Climate Change Denier-in-Chief by Nancy Ohanian

About six-in-ten Americans (58%) say that government regulations are necessary to encourage businesses and consumers to rely more on renewable energy sources. Fewer (39%) think the private marketplace will encourage the use of renewable energy, without the need for government intervention.

Partisans hold opposing views on this question: 77% of Democrats, including those who lean to the Democratic Party, believe that government regulations are necessary to shift the country toward reliance on renewable energy, while 61% of Republicans and Republican leaners say the private marketplace will be enough.

Views on this question, and opinion dynamics among partisans, are comparable to what they were when the question was last asked in 2018.

Americans’ overall preference to prioritize alternative energy is reflected in views of specific energy source development.

Large shares say they would favor developing more solar panel farms (90%) and more wind turbine farms (83%).

There is far less support for expanding fossil fuel energy sources. Majorities oppose expanding coal mining (65%), hydraulic fracturing (60%) and offshore oil and gas drilling (58%).

A narrow majority of the public (55%) opposes more nuclear power plants in the country, while 43% are in favor.

...There is bipartisan support for expanding solar and wind power, though somewhat smaller majorities of conservative Republicans back these two policies.

By contrast, Republicans-- especially conservative Republicans-- are more supportive than Democrats of expanding fossil fuel energy sources and nuclear power.

Majorities of conservative Republicans favor expanding offshore drilling (72%), hydraulic fracturing (65%) and coal mining (63%). By contrast, about half or fewer of moderate and liberal Republicans favor expanding these forms of energy development. Democrats broadly oppose these methods, and opposition is particularly widespread among liberal Democrats... [Y]ounger Republicans give more priority to alternative energy development-- and are less supportive of expanding fossil fuel sources-- than older Republicans.

...Majorities of Americans continue to say the federal government is doing too little to protect key aspects of the environment. About two-thirds of Americans say the federal government is doing too little to protect water quality of rivers, lakes and streams (67%), protect air quality (65%) and reduce the effects of climate change (65%). About six-in-ten think the federal government is doing too little to protect animals and their habitats (62%), and a slightly smaller majority say the federal government is doing too little to protect open lands in national parks (54%).

These findings come amid a changing federal regulatory landscape. The Trump administration is reversing or seeking to change more than 100 rules and regulations related to carbon dioxide emissions, clean air, water or toxic chemicals.

...Democrats remain far more likely than Republicans to say the government is doing too little to address aspects of the environment. For instance, about nine-in-ten liberal Democrats say the federal government is doing too little to protect air quality (93%) or water quality (91%). By comparison, among conservative Republicans, just 36% say the federal government is doing too little to protect water quality and only 28% say this about air quality. Majorities of conservative Republicans say the federal government is doing the right amount in these areas.

Puerto Rico by Nancy Ohanian

Moderate and liberal Republicans are more critical of government action on the environment than conservative Republicans. Narrow majorities say the government is doing too little to protect water and air quality, wildlife and their habit and to reduce the effects of climate change. Ideological gaps among Democrats are more modest than among Republicans.

One problem with that: the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. The members of Congress from that wing-- corporate Democrats, Blue Dogs, New Dems-- they think like Republicans. I spoke to two candidates who are running for seats occupied by virulent Blue Dogs, both of whom (Kendra Horn of Oklahoma and Tom O'Halleran of Arizona) oppose meaningful climate action. Eva Putzova noted that "In four years, my opponent, Rep. Tom O'Halleran, has done nothing meaningful to address the climate crisis. He is fine with sweeping one of the largest crises that humanity faces under the rug. When I'm in Congress, I'll be the exact opposite. I'll push with other progressives for a Green New Deal to save our planet and retool our economy to be 100% green. We need bold action, not timid baby steps."

Tom Guild is also a Green New Deal advocate, one of the reasons for his candidacy. He told me he favors "bold action on climate change, including using the Green New Deal as a roadmap for future action. Kendra Horn, my primary opponent, does not. I favor planting a trillion trees to absorb carbon emissions; providing tax credits to businesses for developing carbon capture/storage; tougher restrictions on power plant carbon emissions; taxing corporations based on their carbon emissions; and tougher fuel efficiency standards for cars. I have never heard or read anything coming from Horn discussing all these great ideas or any strategy to reverse climate change. Climate change is an existential threat to our planet and humans, according to a consensus of the scientific community. America needs to develop renewable energy sources and transition to a green energy economy very soon. Scientists say that we have as a little as a decade and maybe as much as several decades to seriously deal with climate change before an irreversible decline in our environment leads to the end of planet earth as we have known it. Urgency is the key. Quick action is needed. We cannot fiddle while Rome, Georgia and Rome, Italy and everything in between burns. Of all the issues on the political and economic radar today, climate change is one of the most important, and one we must take very seriously and engage in bold action to quickly address.

Reporting on the poll and a similar one released by Kaiser, the Washington Post's Brady Dennis noted that "while Americans are increasingly worried about climate change, fewer than 4 in 10 said they believe that tackling the problem will require them to make 'major sacrifices,' ... and most are unwilling to pay for it on a personal level. For example, while nearly half of adults said they would be willing to pay a $2 monthly tax on their electricity bills to help combat climate change, just over a quarter said they are willing to pay $10 extra each month. And while two-thirds support stricter fuel-efficiency standards for the nation’s cars and trucks, increases in the gas tax remained deeply unpopular. Instead, clear majorities say they would prefer that climate initiatives be funded by increasing the taxes on wealthy households and on companies that burn fossil fuels. Whether rising concerns over climate change and its impacts on everyday life will translate to the ballot box this fall remains a question mark. Climate and the environment have emerged as a central issue for Democrats, particularly over the past decade... But for Republicans, it’s just the opposite. Concerns over climate remain among their lower priorities."

Progressive Democrat Cathy Kunkel is running for a West Virginia seat occupied by Climate Change denier and Trumpist Republican Alex Mooney. She told me today that "Impacts of the climate crisis are being felt in West Virginia, from recent deadly flooding to impacts on small farms and agriculture. West Virginia needs real political leadership that will fight for federal resources to help revitalize our economy and make sure that no worker is left behind as our country transitions away from fossil fuels and tackles the climate crisis." Needless to say Mooney has failed to provide any kind of constructive leadership, instead just spitting out lies and bullshit about "bringing back" the coal industry.

Audrey Denney is the progressive Democrat running for the largely rural district in northeast California against Climate Change Denier Doug LaMalfa. This morning, she reiterated to me that he "doesn’t believe in climate change. By profession he is a rice farmer. The Growing Climate Solutions Act will help farmers gain access to carbon markets with the carbon they sequester on their farms. That bill is in the Senate now and has broad, bi-partisan support as well as support from large ag companies (i.e. Cargill) and very traditional farming organizations (i.e. the American Farm Bureau). Other than Rep. LaMalfa the rest of the traditional agricultural industry has not only accepted that climate change is real-- but it understands our industry’s role in mitigating it. It is incomprehensible and appauling to me that we have leaders who do not believe in science. Science is not like Santa Claus. Something you can choose to believe in or not. Science is fact. If we want to have a habitable planet, climate change is far and away the most important issue the global community must be confronting."

Trump Seems To Be In A Race To Pollute As Much Of America As He Can Before Being Tossed Out On His Ass

On Thursday, Trump issued an executive order-- claiming a national emergency-- to bypass environmental laws fast-tracking of major construction projects in a bid to... perhaps boost the economy before November, perhaps enrich friends and GOP campaign donors-- probably a combination. What his order does is lift environmental review of major projects, exactly what Congress prohibited over the course of decades. In practical terms it will mean rushed approval of highways pipelines, oil and gas projects and other polluting industries that have historically and disproportionately had harmful effect on minority communities.

Mustafa Santiago Ali of the National Wildlife Federation, formerly a senior adviser for environmental justice at the EPA said "It shows again that they have no respect for the lives in these communities that are already overburdened. Trump’s actions put a spotlight on black lives don’t matter."

And just as that was going on, the Senate was working in a bipartisan fashion-- very rare-- to tackle the the Climate Crisis via agriculture, "direct the Agriculture Department to help farmers, ranchers and landowners use carbon dioxide-absorbing practices to generate carbon credits."

Mike Braun (R-IN), #LadyG (R-SC), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) are the principal sponsors of the Growing Climate Solutions Act, which would direct the U.S. Department of Agriculture "to create a program that would help the agriculture sector gain access to revenue from greenhouse gas offset credit markets... The bill would establish USDA-certified protocols for farmers, ranch and forest owners seeking to develop projects that can generate offset credits under existing programs. It would offer a new revenue stream for farmers, ranchers and land owners suffering from the economic impacts of global trade tensions and the coronavirus."

Landowners and farmers can generate credits and earn money for activities ranging from reforestation to sequestering carbon in soil to capturing methane from livestock.

“As a Main Street Entrepreneur and conservationist, I know firsthand that if we want to address our changing climate then we need to facilitate real solutions that our farmers, environmentalists and industry can all support,” said Braun.

Voluntary offset programs have been around since the early 2000s. In 2018, the average price of such credits was $3/tonne.

Demand for credits is expected to grow when airlines are required to purchase offsets to comply with the industry’s Carbon Offset Reduction Scheme (CORSIA), which will begin in 2021.

Republicans in Congress have largely rejected the kind of economy-wide climate measures proposed by Democrats. But some of them have recently floated legislation that promotes carbon removal through land-based measures like planting trees to investments in carbon capture and sequestration technology for power and industrial plants.

“Our nation’s farmlands, forests, and ranches hold untapped potential for removing harmful emissions from the air naturally,” said Sarah Greenberger, senior vice president at the National Audubon Society.

Kathy Ellis is running to represent a he rural district in southeast Missouri, bordering on Kentucky, Arkansas, Tennessee and the red part of Illinois. And yeah-- it was Trump country in 2016. The PVI is a daunting R+24 and Hillary only took 21.0% of the vote. Two year later Kathy Ellis challenged Trump bootlicker Jason Smith, another right-wing homophobic closet case, and did 4 points better than Hillary did. This November she plans to do much better and, hopefully, replace Smith. She told me she absolutely supports "bipartisan measures to tackle climate change and supports our farmers. When I've travelled throughout the District and spoken with farmers, I've found that they often know the best tools to tackle climate change and want to implement these measures in their agricultural work-- but, they're often too expensive or inaccessible. Our small farmers are suffering, and implementing policies that protect them and our environment is a smart plan forward... Each year, Jason Smith conducts a 'farm tour' where he travels throughout the district, visiting farmers, in his pick of plaid shirts. As one farmer responded this year, 'I just want to be left alone.' It's clear that Smith doesn't prioritize the small farmers that make up our district, and his vote against bipartisan measures such as this makes that clear."

The video below is the very first one Audrey Denney made for her 2018 campaign. Ten seconds in, she said "I believe that climate change is the single largest facing humanity and life as we know it and I spent a huge part of my professional career working to solve this problem." Watch the whole thing. Today, Audrey told that she could talk about it for an entire semester of a college course-- which she has done. She did well last cycle and is now known throughout the large, rural-- and red-- northeastern California district and is running for the seat occupied by right-wing, do-nothing backbencher Doug LaMalfa, a Trump stooge. This morning she told me that she is "beyond thrilled to see bi-partisan support for the Growing Climate Solutions Act. I talk about carbon sequestration every day on the campaign trail-- not just because I’m a science nerd. Drawing carbon down out of the atmosphere and storing it in soil through plants-- is THE cheapest and most effective way to turn the dial back on climate change. Farmers and ranchers unlock this drawdown potential through the way that they manage their land and the practices that they implement. I believe that agriculture can and must have a net positive impact on our environment. The way we continue towards that goal is legislation like this-- that rewards farmers and ranchers for the good things they are already doing, provides support and training, and helps them increase their razor thin profit margins.





Like Audrey and Kathy, J.D. Scholten, a champion of family farms and rural communities, is running for Congress in Iowa's forth district, one of America's top agricultural districts. "One of the most underrated messages from the Iowa Caucus," he told me today, "was the consistent messages from the candidates about paying our farmers for their environmental services. We need to create 'on ramps' for farmers to enhance practices to combat climate change. We can't expect the average farmer who has struggled to make cost of production for over a half decade to go at it alone. At the heart of why I am running for Congress is my vision for Iowa's 4th Congressional District to be the epicenter for 21st century resilient agriculture."

Jennifer Christie didn't win her primary, but this is a bill she's been pushing for-- with a significant amendment: reforestation. She posted this on Twitter the other day:

If You Want Congress To Address The Climate Crisis Seriously, You Should Help Elect Candidates Who Take It As Seriously As You Do

If you've been following DWT since 2012, you probably remember when we endorsed then-state Senator Al Lowenthal of Long Beach for Congress. He had a great record in the state legislature, so it was an easy pick. And-- guess what... he's been a great member of Congress as well. His ProgressivePunch rank has consistently been an "A" and he's always up there with Ro Khanna, Barbara Lee, Judy Chu and Ted Lieu in fighting for the core progressive agenda.

Much of his campaign back in '12 revolved-- as much of his work in Sacramento had-- around the environment so it was no surprise that that's where he's directed much of his energy since going to DC. And now, a member of the House Natural Resources Committee, he is the chairman of the subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Rights.

In a note to his supporters over the weekend he reiterated that "The Trump Administration is no friend of our environment. In the midst of an unprecedented global pandemic, this administration has used the crisis as cover to continue rolling back environmental regulations and pushing through controversial policy changes that threaten not only our environment, but the health of many Americans."

Furthermore, he wrote, "These actions are being quietly slipped under the radar as many public health officials who would have serious concerns over the policy change are busy in efforts to fight coronavirus. Americans are getting sick, and the Trump Administration's cruel environmental policies, all in the name of a pro-polluter agenda, will only make them sicker. People across the nation are suffering from the impacts of these misguided environmental policies, and each additional action by this administration only adds to the harm. As a chairman of a key subcommittee on the Natural Resources Committee, I remain committed to protecting and preserving our environment.

Basically, Lowenthal and other progressives like him are fighting to make sure the Trump regime doesn't destroy our environment in the name of saving our health when they really mean saving the investments of the top 1%.

"The Trump Administration has spent years rolling back decades of hard-fought environmental progress. The White House has worked to undermine science, accelerate climate change, undo decades of work to protect our air, water, and health, and compromise the health of our planet." Lowenthal is doing the hard work it takes to protect the environment by working to stop Trump and protect the future of our planet-- something Trump doesn't spent a second thinking about, beyond claiming the Climate Crisis is a "Chinese hoax."

Here we are, 8 years later and we're still trying to help elect enough progressives to break down the corrupt establishment walls-- transpartisan-- that are holding back progress on the environment and Climate Change. I asked progressive challenger Robin Wilt where these issues are for voters in Monroe County, New York and how she will persuade them she's going to do more than establishment New Dem Joe Morelle.

She told me that "Although the urgency of the environmental crisis has seemingly taken a backseat to the COVID-19 pandemic, those on the frontlines of the struggle are painfully cognizant that the climate change crisis has always been intimately connected to the propagation and spread of global pandemic diseases like COVID-19. Not only does our deforestation and removal of habitat create more opportunity for cross-species spread of viruses not native to the human species, but the susceptibility to illness of certain groups (disproportionately our urban Black and Brown communities) is increased by prolonged exposure to pollutants. That is why it is so important that we have policy like the Green New Deal that focuses on environmental justice. When our representatives, like Joe Morelle, stubbornly ignore not only science, but also our most vulnerable communities, it creates recipes for disaster like the COVID-19 conflagration. We must hold our representation accountable for the circumstances that they have created…and for our future. With the clock ticking on our ability to avoid species-threatening massive casualties from climate crises, we must now, more than ever, vote like our lives depend on it and remove the do-nothing representatives that present a barrier to our collective progress."

Tom Guild is running for the Oklahoma City seat, currently held by a very conservative, utterly worthless Blue Dog, Kendra Horn, who has refused to sign onto the Green New Deal proposal. Earlier today Guild told me that one of his "main goals when elected to the U.S. House is to initiate bold action to fight climate change. The principles of the Green New Deal will be a good guidepost to help us reverse the damage done by excessive use of fossil fuels. We will create tens of millions of good paying green jobs as we transition to an environmentally friendly renewable energy policy. According to a consensus of the scientific community, time is running short to effectively deal with climate change. We must not set in motion an irreversible situation that leads to the destruction of our environment that scientists say will likely render planet earth unsustainable for human life in the foreseeable future."

Audrey Denney is the progressive Democrat running for Congress in a sprawling rural district in northeastern California. When Bernie decided to announce his own climate plank, he did it at an event with Audrey in her district. Few candidates are as serious as she is about Climate. This morning she told me that "Climate change is the single most important issue facing the planet. We are already living through its effects. In 2018, 93 people died in our district in two devastating and historic wildfires-- where climate change was a contributing factor. My commitment to moving forward policy that help us mitigate and adapt to climate change was the reason I was the first congressional candidate to be endorsed by the Sunrise Movement this cycle. I’m running against a far-right extremist climate change denier-- who is also a rice farmer. Every single farmer I know and work with knows that climatic patterns are changing. Except Congressman LaMalfa."

Riverside County progressive Liam O'Mara is practically a neighbor of Al Lowenthal's and he's just as gung-ho on the environment and climate change as Lowenthal is. Liam made this minute-long video for us today. He says when it comes to the Climate Crisis, Congress should "stop listening to lobbyists and start listening to scientists... We are falling behind Europe and east Asia in the technologies of to-morrow, and ought instead to set American ingenuity free to create the jobs that will make us competitive for generations. Infrastructure investment pays itself back 3-to-1, so let's put Americans back to work building a modern power grid, battery storage, and renewable generating capacity." He also noted that the CA-42 incumbent, "Crooked Ken Calvert, has a lifetime score of 7% from the League of Conservation Voters and a 0% from the Sierra Club. He wants to pillage the earth for short-term corporate profit and hand taxpayer money to polluters."

Do People Where You Are Care That Much About Clean Water? Enough To Make Them Vote One Way Or The Other?

EPA Failure by Nancy Ohanian

Where are there voters who would get enthusiastic about rolling back a regulation that limits the amount of pollution and chemicals in our nation’s rivers, lakes, streams and wetlands? Where? Well, not in states, but at Republican Party meetings... they always go for abolishing regulations. All through American history, every step forward has meant a fight with conservatives and vested interests. Clean water might be good for the whole country, but rich, selfish special interests... they buy bottled water anyway. Progressives had to fight for years to pass and implement anti-Trust laws and conservatives just keep-- and still keep-- fighting against the public interest, pouring immense sums of money into persuading people that their own interests are somehow tied to the interest of the very rich. It works sometimes too. Labor rights took many decades and much blood spilled. And then came worker protection laws, child labor laws, consumer protections, environmental protections... they all seem like no brainers. But none were, partial because so many voters actually have no-- or non-functional-- brains. They don't see that conservatives, by their very nature, are their enemies.

On Thursday, the Trumpist regime "announced the repeal of one of the Obama era's most sweeping environmental rules-- a set of pollution protections for small streams and wetlands that had riled up opposition from coal miners, home developers, farmers and oil and gas drillers." Politico reporter Annie Snider wrote that "The action creates instant doubts about the legal status of myriad seasonal or isolated wetlands and thousands of miles of waterways, including vast swaths of the arid West. And it clears the way for the Environmental Protection Agency to finish a follow-up regulation in the coming months that could leave most of the nation's wetlands without any federal safeguards."

EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler signed the repeal at the D.C. headquarters of the National Association of Manufacturers, one of the industry groups that had opposed the Obama administration's Waters of the U.S. rule. That 2015 regulation, also known as the Clean Water Rule, had cemented federal protections for headwater streams, Western rivers and nearby wetlands, in an effort to resolve questions raised by two muddled Supreme Court decisions.

Trump EPA Administrator Scott Wheeler by Nancy Ohanian

The repeal "removes an egregious power grab" by the Obama Administration, Wheeler said.

"When President Trump took office he immediately set into motion a process to remove and replace regulations that were stifling economic development," he said. "This climate of regulatory certainty is breathing new life into local economies around the country and today’s action is a perfect example.”

Environmental groups and state attorneys general vowed to challenge the rollback, arguing that it jeopardizes drinking water supplies for 117 million Americans.

"California won't stand for this latest environmental attack by the Trump Administration, which could threaten federal protections for the majority of our waters," California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement.

Jon Devine, director of federal water policy for the Natural Resources Defense Council, defended the Obama administration rule in a statement, saying it "represented solid science and smart public policy."

"The Trump administration's wild-eyed attempts to reward polluters, however, knows no bounds, so it is repealing these important protections without regard for the law or sound science," he said. "This unsubstantiated action is illegal and will certainly be challenged in court."

...In repealing Obama's rule, Wheeler's action restores earlier regulations that had governed Clean Water Act permitting before 2015. Both environmentalists and industry groups have complained that the pre-2015 rules are laborious and lead to inconsistent decisions.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration is crafting a subsequent regulation that it hopes to finish before the end of the year to replace those rules with a much narrower definition of the types of streams and wetlands that are subject to Clean Water Act permitting requirements. By one early estimate from federal regulators, more than half the wetlands now protected would fall out of jurisdiction under the Trump administration's approach, which would eliminate nearly all federal protections for waterways in arid states like Arizona.

Long Island Congressman Tom Suozzi, asked a series of rhetorical questions when he saw what Trump was doing: "What can be more basic than protecting water? The water we drink? The waters that support marine life? The water that supports all living things? How can base politicians support monied interests over the essence of life?" And then made a strong and important suggestion: "We must fight back."

Jon Hoadley is a respected and effective state legislator in Michigan, running for the congressional seat occupied by Trump enabler Fred Upton. "We're suffering from a drinking water crisis in Michigan, a state surrounded by over 20% of the world's fresh water," he told me today. "There are people in Flint still without clean drinking water. There are people across Southwest Michigan worried about PFAS in their water. We need to be holding polluters accountable, not let people off the hook who poison our water to save a buck."

Jason Butler, a Wake County, North Carolina pastor and community organizer, isn't in Congress-- but he's running for a suburban/rural congressional seat occupied by Trump rubber stamp, George Holding. Unlike Tom, Jason had just two questions: "Are we living in the Twilight Zone? I mean, in what universe is this a good idea? Water is literally the building block of life and every single person in this country depend upon clean drinking water. In fact, our whole economy depends upon clean water. To roll these back these protections in the exact moment that we face a global climate crisis that threatens life itself, is not only bad policy, it’s a threat to our lives. If we allow corporations to dump whatever toxic mess they like into our water systems then our ecosystems will be sick, our wildlife will die, and those that depend directly upon clean water will suffer. I feel like this President think that he’s playing a board game where there are no real consequences-- but unfortunately that’s not the case. This is real life and there are real consequences for real people. We need to be putting more protections into place for our water systems instead of destabilizing them. We need to be cleaning up our water systems and designating more areas as protected watersheds. But here’s the crazy thing-- nobody actually thinks this is a good idea. Many big corporations have also come out against this. The only explanation for this move, to me, is that, once again, this President is willing to sacrifice the future of the American people for another Trump ego trip."


 

Would Members Of Congress Push Forward Policies That CAUSE Forest Fires In Return For Cash? Depends How Much Cash You're Offering-- But Sure

Ansel Adams: "It is horrifying that we have to fight our own Government to save our environment."

When Trump tweets about forest management and about raking and cleaning forest floors to prevent forest fires, he's not talking about getting rid of dead leaves, pine needles and rubbish. He's talking about the indiscriminate logging operations a small handful of GOP donors-- who own logging companies-- are demanding.

Tom Wheeler, executive director of the northern California-based Environmental Protection Information Center: "Trump doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about. The federal government has done a bad job historically on post-fire management, and it only seems like Trump and the Trump administration is being more aggressively stupid in their management of our forests."

Self-described "extreme money-in-politics nerd," Alex Kotch penned a piece for Sludge last week, America’s Biggest Wildfire Profiteer Is Major Donor to Republicans Whose Policies Benefit His Business pointed a finger of blame, in way of example, for California's wildfires at one company (Sierra Pacific Industries), one family (the Emmersons) and one political party (the Republicans). Background: "Scientists say that post-fire logging makes future wildfires more likely, but Republicans with funding from the logging industry are trying to expand the practice." Kotch wrote that "By managing and cleaning, Trump means logging. His own Interior and Agriculture secretaries said as much in August when introducing a plan that would allegedly prevent forest fires by removing dead trees. Environmental advocates say the Trump administration and certain lawmakers are siding with the logging industry at the expense of lives, homes, and the health of American forests. Post-fire salvage logging can actually make wildfires more likely and can also 'set back the forest renewal process for decades,' according to a 2015 letter to the Senate from 250 scientists."

Because of misguided state and federal policy, a billionaire logging family in California, the Emmerson family, is profiting from catastrophic forest fires on the West Coast as it funds politicians whose policies help its business. Recipients of campaign donations from the family push for measures that intensify climate change, a cause of increasingly intense fires, and weaken forest protections, allowing logging companies more access to post-fire sites.

The Emmerson family, which owns logging giant Sierra Pacific Industries, has donated over $1 million to mostly Republican federal candidates and PACs since 2015, according to a Sludge analysis of campaign finance records. Several of the family’s recipients, such as Bruce Westerman (R-AR) and Jeff Denham (R-CA), are House members who sit on committees that oversee national forests.

Republicans’ pro-fossil fuel and anti-regulation policies directly exacerbate climate change, which in turn impacts forest fires, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists. Global warming causes drier soil and longer wildfire seasons, making fires more intense and longer-lasting. And, as opposed to leaving the carbon in burned trees to eventually end up underground, post-fire logging leads to more carbon being released into the atmosphere from the wood during processing.

Post-fire salvage loggers typically remove large trees from burned forests but leave behind smaller, highly flammable materials... The U.S. Forest Service’s timber sale staff, the logging industry, and pro-industry politicians claim that removing trees from forests decreases the likelihood of fires, but many conservationists and scientists disagree.

“The reality is completely the opposite,” said Chad Hanson [co-founder of the conservation group the John Muir Project]. “In fact, we just published the largest scientific study on this issue ever conducted by far…and we found that the forests with the fewest environmental protections and the most logging actually burned the most intensely.”

Sierra Pacific Industries, based in the northern California town of Anderson, is the fourth-largest lumber producer in the country, and it’s “overwhelmingly the main purchaser of timber from national forests,” says Hanson. Red Emmerson, the multi-billionaire CEO and son of the Sierra Pacific founder, his two sons, Mark and Greg, and his daughter, Carolyn, share ownership of the company.

The business takes in tens of millions of dollars each year from post-fire salvage logging. As the third-largest owner of private land in America, Sierra Pacific derives the bulk of its income from logging on its own lands, but some of its profits come from cheap wood it removes from national forests after winning government bids to access post-fire areas. These operations are subsidized by taxpayers, as government agencies pay for the construction of roads to remote areas of forest and for an herbicide to make the logging process quicker. A smaller portion of Sierra Pacific’s revenue comes from government contracts with the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Emmerson, his sons, and his daughters-in-law, Catherine and Susan, have combined to donate over $1,040,000 to federal candidates and PACs, most of it going to Republicans or GOP-supporting committees, in just the last four years, per Sludge’s research. Sierra Pacific Industries did not respond to emails and phone calls requesting an interview.

The Emmersons have given significant amounts of money to two Republican congressmen who sit on House committees that oversee national forests.

Jeff Denham, who represents California’s 10th Congressional District, has received over $20,000 for his campaign committee, leadership PAC, and joint fundraising committee from the family since 2015. Denham is a member of the Agriculture Committee’s Conservation and Forestry subcommittee and narrowly lost re-election in November.

Denham is a cosponsor of a 2017 bill to loosen environmental regulations on national forests, the Emergency Forest Restoration Act. The legislation, which sponsors claim will protect and regenerate forests, would open up more national forest lands to commercial logging, exempting certain areas from the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Cosponsors include other representatives who have receive contributions from the Emmersons, including primary sponsor Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA), who has received $7,200 from the Emmersons since 2015; Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), whose various PACs have received nearly $84,000 from the Emmersons; and Bruce Westerman (R-AR).

Since 2015, the Emmersons have donated a total of $15,200 to the campaign committee and leadership PAC of Westerman, a member of the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Federal Lands and the primary sponsor of the Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017, along with 16 mostly Republican cosponsors. The legislation, which passed the House in November 2017, requires environmental assessments of a forest management activity to only consider the impact of that activity or “the alternative of no action.” It requires the federal government to open up more public lands for private logging and exempts extremely large logging projects, including clearcutting, from any meaningful oversight.

“It’s the most significant attack on our national forests in history,” Hanson said. “We’ve never seen anything this extreme.” The bill, he explained, would essentially eliminate all environmental analysis and nearly all public participation regarding logging projects and proposals on national forests. Potential logging projects would be exempt from analyses such as whether they would increase fire intensity next to a community, something that happened in the Camp Fire.

“Intensive logging, mostly post fire-logging, occurred for years on private timberland and national forest land just east of [the town of] Paradise,” said Hanson. “It just ripped through that area very rapidly…People had almost no time to evacuate.

Hanson said the bill is “just a sham and a total giveaway to logging companies.”

In stark contrast, Westerman wrote in an op-ed days after introducing the legislation that the Resilient Federal Forests Act “has one overriding goal-- to make our federal forests healthy again through sound science and management.”

“I believe we can pass a bipartisan bill that will better allow the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to utilize tools to immediately reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfire, insect and disease infestation and damage to state, municipal, and personal property,” wrote Westerman. “Not only can we reduce the threats previously mentioned, but we can do it in a way that benefits rural economies, conservation groups, sportsmans groups, and even those families that wish to build homes….We have a problem of not salvaging timber destroyed in catastrophic events, which makes the forests more dangerous for the next generation. This increases future wildfire problems and makes reforestation challenging.”

The Arkansas representative has doubted humans’ role in climate change and denied that climate change affected forest fires in his state of Arkansas. The League of Conservation Voters gave him a lifetime national environment score of 1 out of 100. Westerman’s office did not respond to requests for comment.

...Aside from House leaders Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI), Majority Leader McCarthy, and former Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), Denham and Westerman received the most in direct contributions from the Emmersons over the past four years. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Westerman has accepted the ninth-highest lifetime total from the forestry and forest products industry out of all current and former House members. In the 2018 election cycle, Westerman leads the pack by nearly $58,000 with a total of $197,000 in contributions from the industry.

Since 2015, the Emmerson family has donated directly to political committees of three additional cosponsors of the Resilient Federal Forests Act and a number of other members of the House Federal Lands and Conservation and Forestry subcommittees. In all, the Emmersons gave to the PACs of 34 House candidates-- including Greg Walden (R-OR), a cosponsor of the Resilient Federal Forests Act, and Tom McClintock (R-CA), also a cosponsor, who chairs the Federal Lands Subcommittee and whose district, California’s 4th, includes some of Sierra Pacific’s forest land. The family also gave to 12 Senate candidates and doled out large amounts to the National Republican Congressional Committee ($252,000) and the Congressional Leadership Fund super PAC ($50,000).

The Emmersons donated over $200,000 to congressional candidates in California, Oregon, and Washington.

Overall, the family poured nearly $900,000 into Republican PACs, $105,000 into PACs supporting members of both major parties, and $35,500 into Democratic committees.

The family has given $60,000 since 2015 to the National Alliance Of Forest Owners PAC, of which Mark Emmerson is the chief financial officer. In the 2017-18 election cycle, that PAC gave roughly two-thirds of its campaign money to Republicans. The donation patterns mirror those of the Emmersons; it has contributed to Westerman ($18,500) and several other lawmakers to whom the Emmersons have donated since 2015. The family gave smaller amounts to three more logging industry PACs as well.

The Emmersons have also donated roughly $140,000 to state candidates in California and Washington, according to data compiled by the National Institute on Money in State Politics. California’s Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, made up of members selected by the governor, sets state forest policy, which the California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) implements. Current Board of Forestry members include Richard Wade, a longtime employee of Sierra Pacific Industries, and employees of other timber companies, including  Mendocino and Humboldt Redwood Companies and the Michigan-California Timber Company.

“The [Gov. Jerry] Brown administration has been particularly bad when it comes to anti-forest policies,” said the Environmental Protection Information Center’s Wheeler.

In its fourth-quarter report from 2016, Sierra Pacific wrote, “Now that the dust has settled on the national election, we are optimistic that the future will be positive for Sierra Pacific and for the nation…The nation is about to experience a major shift in political priorities.”

Since Trump became president, the executive branch is planning to remove protections of federal lands and has ordered more logging. New proposals from the administration to increase logging will entail new bidding for contracts, which Sierra Pacific is sure to pounce on. According to Forbes, the administration approved a $28 million reforestation plan earlier this year that will entail clearing trees on burned land.

The Forest Service has a conflict of interest around logging. All profits from timber sales from national forests go directly into the Forest Service’s budget, according to Hanson, a budget that’s been subject to cuts in recent years. The president’s 2019 fiscal year budget proposal calls for more cuts and increased logging. The Forest Service did not answer questions posed by Sludge.

Sierra Pacific currently operates in California and Washington, but it’s hoping to expand into states such as Oregon. The company owns manufacturer Sierra Pacific Windows, which has two factories in Wisconsin, and it recently placed unsuccessful bids to buy sawmills in Florida and Georgia.

This trend is the wrong direction for people’s safety and for the environment, say environmental advocates.

“With so many homes burning and people losing their lives, we need to prioritize protecting homes and communities…by creating more fire-safe homes and doing defensible space pruning within 100 feet of homes,” said Hanson.

“Pro-logging politicians who get a lot of campaign contributions from Sierra Pacific Industries and other logging companies” are “perpetuating the commercial logging program in our national forests,” said Hanson. “And they’re doing that at a time when the scientific community is increasingly saying that in order to effectively mitigate climate change…we have to substantially increase forest protections so we can pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. We’re not going to get there if politicians who are funded by the logging industry keep rolling back environmental laws…and increasing logging in our forests.”

Rod Emmerson (l) cofounded Sierra Pacific in 1949 with his dad, Curly. Today the comapny is managed by Rod's sons, Mark (c) and George (r)

Aside from the million plus that the Emmersons have personally put into corruptible politicians' war chests, their company, Sierra Pacific, also helps spread the cash around. This year, for example, the three biggest recipients of their generosity were, predictably, Westerman, Paul Ryan and Kevin McCarthy. Other House members who were willing targets of Sierra Pacific's attentions were Republicans Ken Calvert (CA), Jaime Herrera Beutler (WA), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA), Jeff Denham (CA), Dave Reichert (WA) and Tom McClintock (CA) plus three promising candidates with reputations as players who take cash for votes: Scott Baugh (R-CA), Dino Rossi (R-WA), Andrew Grant (R-CA)-- all of whom lost. And then there were the sticky-palmed New Dems. No normal Democrats took any money from Sierra Pacific this cycle but Dereck Kilmer (new chairman of the new Dems) did, as did Oregon Blue Dog Kurt Schrader and Washington New Dem Suzan DelBene.

This is as good a time as any to mention that despite Pelosi's much-ballyhooed H.R. 1 bill that purports to fight corruption, there will be no inroads against corruption in Congress until it become a crime for committee members to tale money from companies and executives in industries their committee oversees. The ten biggest Forestry and Forest Products firms (International Paper, KapStone Paper & Packaging, Weyerhaeuser Co., Sierra Pacific Industries, American Forest & Paper Assn, Hardwood Federation, Koch Industries, National Alliance of Forest Owners, Idaho Forest Group and Timber Management) have given millions of dollars in bribes to members of Congress-- almost exclusively Republicans and corrupt Democrats from the Republican wing the Democratic Party-- and they're not giving that money because they're good citizens. Since 1990, the industry has forked over $41,623,677 to Republicans and $13,527,426 to Democrats. The 10 current members of the House who have enjoyed the biggest bribes from the Forest Industry overall are:

• Greg Walden (R-OR)- $917,246
• Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA)- $520,083
• Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR)- $403,700
• Paul Ryan (R-WI)- $360,802
• Bruce Westerman (R-AR)- $331,310
• Mike Simpson (R-ID)- $262,762
• Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-WA)- $256,777
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)- $254,641
• Dave Reichert (R-WA)- $251,350
• Kevin Brady (R-TX)- $223,025

These aren't 10 random crooks. Each is in a position to help-- and has helped-- push forward the goals/profits of the industry. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, for example, isn't just a member of the Natural Resources Committee (and its subcommittee on fisheries, wildlife and oceans), she is also Chairwoman of the National Task Force on Improving the National Environmental Policy. Westerman is also on the Natural resources committee-- and on the crucial Federal Lands Subcommittee. Collin Peterson, a notorious bribe taker, was chair of the House Agriculture Committee, which he is about to become again.

Emmerson mostly bribes Republicans but he recognizes a crooked Democrat when he sees one. Here he is with slimy New Dem chairman Derek Kilmer (WA)